San Jose to require gun owners to carry liability insurance

[UsualName]

Looks like some in California have been reading the forum. Good.

I don’t necessarily know about the mechanics of their plan being that they are creating a public fund but they are on the right track.

I’m sure there will be some legal challenges and even some losses but working out the kinks is to be expected.

While San Jose is claiming guns create a financial liability for citizens and their right to tax is the constitutional mechanism as an appropriate remedy to relieve tax payers but that’s just lawyer prattle. The end result is prove you still have your guns which is the key to getting gun violence under control in the long term.

Good for San Jose. They’ve advanced an appropriate remedy for states and the federal government to work with.

https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-to-make-gun-owners-carry-insurance-pay-into-public-fund/

 

[KCalhoun]

Bad idea imho. Taxing law abiding firearm owners for no good reason.

How about taxing criminals instead?

Democrats = "if it moves, tax it"

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Yeh, sure.

Maybe you can pay for it with infrastructure funds. Seems to be the trend these days.

Maybe free speech liability insurance too before using social media.



San Jose gun owners. I am sure they will sign right up.

 

[userque]

Bad idea imho. Taxing law abiding firearm owners for no good reason.

How about taxing criminals instead?

Democrats = "if it moves, tax it"

It's insurance.

Automobile insure was made a requirement as well, a long while ago.
Other things are required to be insured.

Firearm accidents can and do happen, even among the well-trained. Victims should have the potential for financial recourse.

Now, please explain to use why we are required to insure other things that can cause great bodily/financial harm/death; but should be required to insure firearms.

 

[LS1Z28]

It's insurance.

Automobile insure was made a requirement as well, a long while ago.
Other things are required to be insured.

Firearm accidents can and do happen, even among the well-trained. Victims should have the potential for financial recourse.

Now, please explain to use why we are required to insure other things that can cause great bodily/financial harm/death; but should be required to insure firearms.

What other constitutional rights require insurance? How could you make a constitutional right dependent on whether or not someone could afford to pay a fee to possess it? Words can cause riots. How would you feel if the government started taxing people for the right to use freedom of speech?

I hope this will be struck down in court. California is a beautiful state, but I would never want to live there.

 

[userque]

What other constitutional rights require insurance?

What other constitutional rights are equivalent to gun rights? If there are none, then it stands to reason that there are also none that require insurance.

How could you make a constitutional right dependent on whether or not someone could afford to pay a fee to possess it?

The Constitution also gives us the right to life, liberty, and justice. All of them cost. Unless you consider:
Having a shortened life span than wealthier citizens as life,
being homeless as liberty,
and having little/no competent civil recourse, and an overworked, underqualified, public defender ... as justice.

All of our rights have restrictions.
All of our freedoms have a cost, unless you consider my immediately above points as appropriate, constitutional freedoms, and not a subclass of freedoms.

Words can cause riots. How would you feel if the government started taxing people for the right to use freedom of speech?

I'm discussing insurance.

But the nexus between pulling the trigger, and harm is a direct one. This is not so with speech. Speech doesn't harm, it can potentially motivate others to do harm.

You could also argue that a murder's mother should be held accountable. We all know this is silly because the lack of nexus.

Pulling the trigger, or hitting the accelerator and killing others are direct causes and immediate effects. This is not the case with speech.

I hope this will be struck down in court. California is a beautiful state, but I would never want to live there.

 

[Ricter]

It's about fucking time. Training, testing, licensing, insurance. "Cars kill people, why don't we ban cars? Waaaaa!"

 

[Wallet]

The law is racist, it disproportionately impacts low income and minorities.

 

[LS1Z28]

What other constitutional rights are equivalent to gun rights? If there are none, then it stands to reason that there are also none that require insurance.

The Constitution also gives us the right to life, liberty, and justice. All of them cost. Unless you consider:
Having a shortened life span than wealthier citizens as life,
being homeless as liberty,
and having little/no competent civil recourse, and an overworked, underqualified, public defender ... as justice.

All of our rights have restrictions.
All of our freedoms have a cost, unless you consider my immediately above points as appropriate, constitutional freedoms, and not a subclass of freedoms.

I'm discussing insurance.

But the nexus between pulling the trigger, and harm is a direct one. This is not so with speech. Speech doesn't harm, it can potentially motivate others to do harm.

You could also argue that a murder's mother should be held accountable. We all know this is silly because the lack of nexus.

Pulling the trigger, or hitting the accelerator and killing others are direct causes and immediate effects.

Every constitutional right is somewhat unique, but I don't support requiring a fee to possess any of them.

26% of murders don't involve firearms. Maybe we should require everyone to carry general liability insurance just in case they do something that creates financial harm for someone else.

 

[userque]

Every constitutional right is somewhat unique, but I don't support requiring a fee to possess any of them.

26% of murders don't involve firearms. Maybe we should require everyone to carry general liability insurance just in case they do something that creates financial harm for someone else.

You have a right to bear arms. But what if you can't afford to buy a firearm?

I guess you can't have one then.

Firearms cost money, constitutional right or not. Insurance can be considered part of that cost; likely a fractional part of that cost.

We almost do have general liability for all situations where you can cause great bodily harm or death to another.